We support reform initiatives that enhance access to justice, reduce cost and delay, and improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of administrative decision-making.
While expert adjudication outside the courts is generally in the public interest, the current system is overly complex, with numerous non-court adjudicative bodies producing first instance decisions of inconsistent quality that can go unchallenged due to cost barriers.
Judicial review, while an essential safeguard, cannot substitute for robust and consistent decision-making at first instance. Strengthening procedural baselines, adjudicator training, and transparent appointment processes is therefore essential to maintaining public confidence.
Background
In 2019, the Law Reform Commission (LRC) began work on reforming non-court adjudicative bodies and appeals to courts. Ireland has many quasi-judicial bodies, which have developed without a unified approach to procedure or appeals.
For more information, see the LRC Consultation Paper, published in December 2025
The Supreme Court decision in Zalewski clarified constitutional law in relation to administrative adjudication. In that case the Supreme Court held that some adjudicative bodies are engaged in the administration of justice within the meaning of Article 34 and must act and be structured similarly to the courts. The Court also held that the saving provision of Article 37 means that different types of adjudicative bodies may exercise limited judicial functions without being considered courts. This decision has placed a sharp focus on existing adjudicative bodies in Ireland and how they conduct their adjudication.
Key recommendations
Approach to Reform: While reforms that enhance procedural fairness and streamline processes are welcome, the Law Society expressed reservations regarding key proposals in the Consultation Paper, particularly the introduction of a comprehensive framework statute and the establishment of an Administrative Justice Council. A single overarching statutory regime risks conflict with existing legislation, increased litigation, and undue procedural rigidity across a diverse range of bodies. Instead, a targeted, incremental approach is advocated, building on existing legislative models and established principles.
Identifying Non-Court Adjudicative Bodies: A notable deficiency in the Consultation Paper is the absence of a comprehensive inventory of non-court adjudicative bodies in the State. Such a mapping exercise is essential to understanding the scale, diversity, and overlap within the system. Comparative experience, such as the Leggatt Review in the UK, demonstrates the importance of a detailed audit as a foundation for meaningful reform.
Framework Statute and Administrative Justice Council: The Law Society does not support the introduction of a far-reaching framework statute, citing risks of conflict with existing statutory schemes, increased litigation, and mis categorisation of existing adjudicative bodies.
Similarly, the creation of an Administrative Justice Council raises concerns including duplication of functions and the creation of an additional unnecessary bureaucratic layer in the system. The courts remain the constitutionally appropriate forum for the supervision of administrative decision-making.
Appeals Reform: Targeted reform of appeals processes is supported. The current requirement in some instances to pursue parallel statutory appeals and judicial review proceedings is inefficient and costly. Greater coherence and clarity are needed, potentially informed by recent legislative models and fuller use of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Composition, Governance and Independence
Improvements to the composition and governance of adjudicative bodies are endorsed, including merit-based appointments, ongoing training, safeguards for independence, and increased transparency. Greater use of shared services and clustering is encouraged to enhance efficiency, while training initiatives could be implemented immediately without legislative change.
Finally, the independence of adjudicative bodies must be both real and perceived. Clear organisational and functional separation from government departments is essential to maintaining public trust in the administrative justice system.
